Wiki Engine Review

See also: ChoosingaWiki, TopTenWikiEngines, WikiEngines, or WikiEngineReviewWikiLists WikiEngineReviewTable.

List of WikiEngines Reviewed


Thanks to Ward Cunningham for tolerating these pages.

I have some thoughts about attempting to get this published, probably in a slightly different format. If it is published, I will give credit to all named contributors, a general credit to unnamed contributors, and credit to WardsWiki. If you have comments about this let me know. (Perhaps we should immediately start a new page, PublishingWikiContent?.)

In the wiki pages listed below, (you and) I will try to provide information about several different WikiEngines, including WardsOriginalWikiEngine (WikiWikiWeb) in order to facilitate choosing an appropriate wiki. In the course of doing this I will also discuss WikiFarms (web sites that will host a wiki for you, either public or private, for free or for a fee).

WikiEngineReviewNotes is unfinished (but has been significantly improved by SunirShah). It contains links to general information about wikis. It also may contain information which you may need to properly interpret, comment on, or fill out the reviews.

WikiEngineReviewTemplate contains the list of attributes to be evaluated. It can serve as a template for evaluation of additional WikiEngines. The intent of each attribute on the template is described on WikiEngineReviewTemplateAnnotated.

I want to maintain reviews for old versions of WikiEngines that might still be in use on particular WikiFarms or WikiSites. JuergenHermann developed the approach of providing an intermediate page and identifying each wiki version with the version number in words. Thanks, Juergen!

WikiEngineReviewTerminology will contain definitions of some terms. The terms wiki, Wiki, WikiEngine, WikiSite, and WikiWeb are explained on that page.


The first "messages" below have been moved (and refactored) from my home page.

WardsWiki review inaccurate, my Wiki requirements are strange

"Your review on WikiEngineReviewWardsOriginalWiki is extremely inaccurate. I had fixed it, but I lost the edit conflict (and all that work). Now I don't have time to redo it; maybe later." -ss -- I agree, it needs work. I am working my way through some of the other reviews before going back to it. If someone else can fix the factual errors or omissions that would be great, and if you want to express a different opinion, there is a "Comments by Users" section (which can be used by reviewers as well).

"Also, your requirements for a wiki are rather strange. If you could motivate your requirements, maybe we could help you find an appropriate match or change your mind. If you really want a lot of hard security, perhaps TWiki is your best choice, but you should read first. -- SunirShah" -ss -- I prepared page WikiEngineReviewRhkCriteria (and then revised it) and WikiEngineReviewRhkCriteriaDiscussion to describe my motivations.

"I have responded to your motivations. Keep in mind that I am a "trust and simplicity" zealot. --ss" -- Sunir's comments are on WikiEngineReviewRhkCriteriaDiscussion. I left one of my (refactored) comments below:

"...I am focused (not necessarily in order of importance) on (building and maintaining):

I am looking at a wiki as a tool that might support all three, if I find a WikiEngine with the right capabilities. ..." -rhk

Renaming These Pages

FridemarPache wrote to thank me for my efforts, and the efforts of other contributors -- "My thanks go to SunirShah, JuergenHermann and all the others, that support this review project." (and mine too - rhk) and to suggest renaming the pages, at least partially to make it clear that this is an effort at reviewing WikiEngines and not WikiForums.

Update: I am now in the process of updating all pages to start with WikiEngineReview -- I am in no particular hurry, but as I add or update pages I will do it. -- RandyKramer

Swiki vs. ComSwiki

JasonYip wrote to suggest that I review ComSwikis? in addition to Swikis. I am still confused about Swiki vs. ComSwiki, and will write back to support at the swiki farm to see if they can clarify this for me.

I wrote the review for WikiSwikiReviewTwoEight? as if it were not a ComSwiki, because:

Update: See WikiEngineReviewSwiki and WikiEngineReviewSwikiFarm? for the current disposition of this issue. The farm is apparently not using Swiki 2.8 or ComSwiki 11, but a fork they created earlier in the development process and which they have retrofitted with selected improvements from Swiki, ComSwiki, or other sources. Thus, the Swiki farm is probably not an accurate example of the capabilities of either Swiki 2.8 or ComSwiki 11.

1/10/01: Other resources

Long links intentionally split to allow proper word wrap (i.e., so that, in narrow windows, other lines will wrap to the width of the window) -- copy and paste to follow the link.

old site: 12/17/00: Short Term Plans / Goals:

Older Status Updates To be deleted soon

Preliminary (or first draft) reviews of TWiki, Swiki, Twiky, WardsOriginalWiki (WikiWikiWeb), and UseMod are on this site. They can all use vetting by knowledgeable users.

I have added a message section at the bottom of this page. I am moving and refactoring most messages related to these reviews from my "home" page to here. There are active (unresolved) messages in that area relating to:

Your help is welcome in resolving any of these items.

Doesn't it make more sense to write the review on the page for the wiki itself? Ex: to write a review for WikiVisualWorks? on the WikiVisualWorks? page?

WikiEngineReview Originator / Author, Maintainer, Contributors


EditText of this page (last edited December 24, 2012) or FindPage with title or text search